Appeal No. 2002-0058
Application No. 08/859,865
system” includes forward progress of an application as
taught by Richter [answer, page 10]. Appellants respond
that the claimed phrase must be interpreted in light of the
specification [reply brief, pages 3-4].
We will sustain the examiner’s rejection of this
group of claims. Claims are given their broadest reasonable
interpretation during prosecution. See Morris, supra, at
1055. We agree with the examiner that the phrase “forward
progress of a computer system” is broad enough to include
forward progress of a computer application as indicated by
the examiner. Appellants could easily amend the language of
claim 8 to limit its scope to that which is argued.
In summary, we have sustained the examiner’s rejection
with respect to claims 1, 4-9, 12, 15-20, 23, 25-28 and 31-
33, but we have not sustained the rejection with respect to
claims 2, 3, 10, 11, 13, 14, 21, 22, 24, 29, 30 and 34.
Therefore the decision of the examiner rejecting claims 1-34
is affirmed-in-part.
-13-
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007